Civil unions and benefits for same-sex couples

Civil Unions and Benefits for Same Sex Couples

Gay individuals in this country have recently begun fighting in earnest for the right to legally be bound to one another. Some states allow them to have civil unions, but they are generally not happy with this and they want the full rights that marriage would allow them, such as insurance and other issues. There are other states and other countries, though, that have ruled in favor of marriage for homosexual individuals. When couples get married in these areas and then move to places where marriages are not recognized it becomes a problem, and they have to fight for many of their rights. Gay marriage is something that is still a very touchy subject for a lot of people, and it may never be passed in all states. However, there are many reasons why gays should be allowed to legally be bound to one another through civil unions, and the most compelling reason is that civil unions go along with natural law. For purposes of understanding, natural law will be discussed here, and then it will be shown how this law ties into the civil unions issue. Other compelling reasons, such as the benefits that these individuals can get through civil unions are also very significant and will also be discussed.

Natural law is based not on what is created by man, but on the laws of reality. In other words, what is real is law, regardless of what man has to say about that reality. Laws of nature and unexplainable issues that are related to natural occurrences (and some people would relate to religion) are seen as natural laws (Dolhenty, 2003). It is somewhat complicated to explain, but explanation is still necessary. Natural law does not change, and must be discovered by people. It involves moral law, ethical law, and other issues that are not changed based on what men decide or whether they think that these laws are appropriate.

One of the most significant individuals in history who looked at natural law as it related to ethics and virtue was Aristotle. The main concept that Aristotle discussed was virtue. It would appear that virtue was very important to him, and that most everything that can be said about humanity hinges on virtue in one way or another. He saw virtue as being composed of two different things, and being both intellectual and moral. The intellectual part of virtue comes from being taught, and the moral part comes from the habits that one has and shows throughout their life (Aristotle, 360).

This would seem to make sense, since people' morals and ideals often change as they grow older, but many of the more ingrained habits that a specific person has seem to remain largely the same, whether they are moral or not. People can change somewhat, however, as they are taught new things and learn about life from both standard teaching, such as schooling, and the teaching that comes from simply being alive long enough to learn many things about the world and about people. Virtues often change somewhat as people grow older and find that life is not necessarily quite what they thought it was when they were younger (Aristotle, 360). These things can work to make someone more or less virtuous, depending on the kinds of lessons that they learn as they age.

To sum up, it can be said that natural law (Dolhenty, 2003):

is not made by human beings; is based on the structure of reality itself; is the same for all human beings and at all times; is an unchanging rule or pattern which is there for human beings to discover; is the naturally knowable moral law; is a means by which human beings can rationally guide themselves to their good. (Source: Dolhenty, 2003).

Despite all of the opinions that Aristotle held, however, and the fact that he saw many things as being a person's 'right by nature' he naturally did not address specifically the subject of civil unions. It is important here, now that a basic understanding of natural law has been addressed, to discuss the subject of civil unions and show how this fits into natural law based on the information above.

Allowing gays to be bound to one another or not allowing them to be bound to one another is a social issue that is definitely one of the most relevant of any social issue with people today. Despite those who seem strongly opposed to civil unions 52% of voters who were polled by CBS indicated that they would actually consider voting for a presidential candidate who they liked even if he did not share their specific views on civil unions (Poll, 2004). This has become increasingly important during this critical election year. Those who are opposed to civil unions are less willing to vote in this way than those who believe in civil unions, which seems that it would be expected (Poll, 2004).

Those who are pro-civil unions are arguing that it is only the radical right that are trying to campaign to amend the Constitution and deny this 'marriage' right to many same-sex individuals across the country who are in committed relationships (Take, 2004). Allowing official 'gay marriage,' though would render invalid all local and state domestic partnerships and destroy the civil rights protections that these individuals have received based on status in states that are allowing civil unions (Take, 2004). Those same individuals argue that there was a long time in this country's history where Catholics and Protestants could not be bound to one another, or where people of different races could not be bound to one another (Take, 2004). Their argument is that these things changed and ended up being acceptable and this is the same issue with gay individuals (Take, 2004).

While it may or may not be the 'same issue' to allow gays to be bound to one another, it is arguable that gays should be able to have this union. Many opponents talk of marriage being between a man and a woman only, but yet many gay people spend their lives together, love each other, adopt children, and so on, so they should have some type of union and a recognition of that. Essentially, they do everything that married male-female couples do, and they undoubtedly have the same feelings for their partners, but yet there are denied the basic right of making their love for one another official and legal in any way. This is unfortunate, and when natural law is looked at, it is difficult to understand how gay couples can be refused when they want to be bound to one another.

The law that prevents them from be bound to one another belongs to man, and natural law states that it is not made by human beings, therefore it should come above or in front of what man has done. Natural law has been here since before man, and should be treated with the respect that it deserves. In other words, if natural law does not see harm with gay couples be bound to one another, who are men to judge? Since natural law is based on reality, the reality appears to be that gay individuals should be together if they want to, and that not allowing them to have civil unions is not going to change how they feel for one another. Homosexuality is not something that people just 'decide on,' and studies have proven that these individuals are this way from birth and that their brain chemistry is actually different (Lawler, 2004). If natural law is, therefore, the same for all people at all times, there should be similarities between natural law and human law, but there clearly is not.

In addition to these points, it has also been said that natural law has always been, and is there for people to discover. If this is the case, it is not something that should be ignored or attempt to be changed based on what human beings think. Natural law will help guide people to the good, and what is right for them. Those that do not believe that gays should be allowed to be bound to one another do not know what it is like to be homosexual, and they do not understand what is 'good' or 'best' for these individuals (Stramel, 2005). There is no harm in allowing gays to be bound to one another through civil unions, as most of them just want to live and enjoy their lives and families, just like everyone else. Other than their sexual orientation, they are just the same as other people, and there is nothing inherently 'wrong' with them simply because they have a different preference for their sexual and life partners. They are simply following natural law, as opposed to the improper constraints of man-made law.

In those states where civil unions are legal there are a lot of benefits that gay people can receive, but it is still a very divisive issue (Herek, 2006). It can also be confusing. Some states have gay marriage as a legal right. Others have domestic partnerships, civil unions, and other terms for things that are the same or similar (Herek, 2006). Whether these options are constitutional is also something that has to be addressed and that is argued about by many scholars and laypeople (Herek, 2006). One of the other concerns that is brought to light where civil unions and their benefits are concerned is how employers view 'spouses' and what kinds of requirements are listed for them to be able to receive benefits (Same, 2008). Depending on how these people are listed, employers may or may not have to accommodate homosexuals and their partners in states that allow for gay marriages and civil unions.

As can be seen by the following map, not all states believe in any type of same-sex civil union or gay marriage, but more states are moving toward recognizing these types of unions for the people who feel that they want to be married or joined legally but who have chosen what most people would consider an 'unconventional' mate.

Same Sex Marriage Laws by State

"Laws Regarding Same-Sex Partnerships in the United States

Same-sex marriages

Unions granting rights similar to marriage

Unions granting limited/enumerated rights

Foreign same-sex marriages recognized

Statute bans same-sex marriage

Constitution bans same-sex marriage

Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg/300px-Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg.png